Lets see, would I rather have an unpredictable drive head crash where all my information dies or I have to pay ~$300 for data recovery that may or may not find any data? Or would I rather have some sectors be read-only so I don't have to pay for recovery and I can still use my system? Hard disks are more prone to catastrophic, unpredictable failures than SSDs. SSDs fail nicely, I don't know about you but simply having to attach another SATA drive to my motherboard, back it up then replace the drive seems a whole lot better than dissembling the drive, trying to fix it, then reassembling it and hoping it works.
No its not. Opera has never been number 1 in browsers and Chrome has Google's advertising, Firefox has the community, and both IE and Safari are pre-installed. The iPhone is a one-browser, one-phone, phone, when eventually a new smartphone takes over, Opera's mobile market will rebound.
I'm not sure you would really want a swap partition on your SSD as that would wear it out faster (and these being a newer technology, you can bet they haven't tested reliability as much as they wanted to).
But chances are if there is a flaw in the drive logic you can return it because it shows up early. However most HDs fail after the warranty is expired.
If I have an SSD in a laptop and I drop the laptop, what are the chances that even if my screen goes splat, my keyboard gets crumbled and the case splits open that my data is still safe? Pretty good. On the other hand, if the same laptop had a hard disk, you are looking at some pretty expensive data recovery plans to get data off of it. Sure, SSDs may have other issues (such as you can only write to a certain sector so many times till it becomes read-only) but with SSDs now and in the future you shouldn't have unpredictable failures like what happens to so many HDs.
10 others that know that it is untested and has no guarantee that it will work? Sure. Now, of course even without the FDA there is still some liability if they didn't properly test it on animals first, but if they knew the risks but still took it, its their problem.
What if they die 2 hours later?
...Of what? Unless you were giving them a toxin, massively overdosing them, or they had an allergic reaction there are few cases that someone would die two hours later. People have allergic reactions to all kinds of "safe" medicines, with some, yes they could die. Both the toxins and overdoses could be charged as fraud.
Yes, and all people are completely rational actors with perfect information...
If the information is wrong, sue the manufacturers. There is no reason that a government that protected against fraud and force could not be a modern, free and productive society. If people aren't acting rationally on it, its their problem not society's.
Or you know, people can and do die because a cure can't be tested fast enough to be 100% certain that it works, however if it cures one life, its worth it. I mean, if someone was dying of cancer and had only a year to live, took a drug, it worked temporarily and they die 10 years later because of something the drug did, thats still better (no one can live forever). Plus, just look at the "miracle berry" case, where the FDA was essentially bought by the sugar industry that prevented a potentially useful item to market.
A free market regulates itself if it is free enough.
...Because either the game has to do a lot of initial loading or use the disk. Even copying from the HD to RAM takes time, sure, today you can pre-load a bunch of stuff, but things still need to be written and read from the disk every now and then.
Gamers, gamers, gamers and gamers. Seriously, the early adopters of any technology that is supposed to be faster on the consumer level will be gamers. Considering that most games are Windows-only it makes sense.
What in the world are you talking about? The nice things about SSDs is that yes, they do fail, but they fail (or are supposed to) in a predictable, non-catastrophic way that leaves the data readable just not writable. I have had two SSDs and haven't had either fail despite heavy usage, and I don't think you could patent SSDs because the technology is everywhere because it is flash memory and even if it is patented more companies make them than just one.
And the point of the Acid tests is to demonstrate whether a given web browser acts like a 2009 browser or a 2001 browser.
True, however anything better than an 80 should be deemed "acceptable" in acting like a 2009 browser. A 94 isn't much different than a 100 when it comes to web standards whenever there are competitors who score a 20.
No web browser can Do What I Mean in all cases.
No, but Firefox comes pretty close, in my experience it does a better job of rendering than WebKit based browsers or IE.
Or d) finding a way not to have to access the site, such as by going to a competitor's site. On the whole, Mac owners tend to spend more online than owners of PCs that run Windows. Since Microsoft stopped making Internet Explorer for Mac, it didn't make sense to turn away potential customers who use Safari, whose WebKit acts more like Gecko than like IE's Trident. That's why there aren't a lot of IE-only sites anymore as of June 2009.
What happens if you go to a site for a small bit of information but the site hasn't been updated in a while and uses IE only code? I'd much rather my browser render it like its supposed to look (how the web designer wanted it to, not how standards necessarily dictate) than have an unusable site. Sure, there aren't many sites like that anymore but there are some.
About a decade ago, did you continue to use AOL even after standard dial-up Internet became popular, because the "existing" sites were still on AOL?
There is a difference though, AOLs system was 100% proprietary, compared to simply bad code which has A) a reference implementation (how it looks in the browser it was coded for) along with B) an OSS rendering engine that due to hard work can render it almost as good as the reference. implementation. There is no reason to simply drop compatibility modes for the sake of enforcing standards which will never work on those older sites because they are simply archives.
For one thing, it appears to be designed to shame Microsoft into improving Windows Internet Explorer. Had there been no Acid2, there might not have been an IE 8.
Actually I think that there would have needed to be an IE 8 otherwise with the OEMs in Europe being allowed to bundle browsers of their choosing and wanting to have sites that look like they should in 2009, not in 2001, would bundle Firefox, Chrome or Safari leading to dwindling marketshare for MS and ultimately leading them to abandon their browser market or release a better browser.
Just because a standard isn't used on June 17, 2009, doesn't mean it won't be used on June 18, 2009. Be it your intent or not, you are giving off an impression that bug-for-bug compatibility with a non-free program called Windows Internet Explorer is more important than following published standards.
Ok, but IE still has the majority of marketshare and there are still legacy sites out there. The fact that it is non-free should only add to the fact that a free browser that is widely used should work with all sites, even those not coded up to specifications, otherwise if there was an IE only site that you had to access you would either be hand-parsing the HTML files, would have to emulate IE if you were using a different platform other than Windows, or run Windows in a VM. Myself I prefer the web to "just work", be secure, and not be a pain to code for. Firefox has all that and compatibility with IE only helps those goals. If that means that I don't get a standard that isn't used, thats fine with me. Its sorta like reverse engineering the iPod Dock connector to use with your own MP3 player so it can work with existing accessories rather than spending development on an ultra-free connector that may or may not be used. Sure, if time allows include both, but I'd rather have compatibility with existing sites than sites that may or may not be used in the future.
Actually, the price of lead has gone up, along with the price of brass leading to higher ammo prices. For example, I shoot sporting clays and the price of a box of shotgun shells have gone up from ~$5 a box to ~$6.50 in only two years. The prices of other forms of ammunition have also gone up. I don't think this is as much of a "bubble" as simply the rising costs of raw materials.
Errr... Having installed Firefox many different times, on many different releases, on many different platforms, I would have to say that at least for versions 3 and above (been forever since I have installed anything in the 2.X branch, but I think it was enabled by default then too), spellcheck is enabled by default.
A lot of people would disagree with you that Acid3 is in fact a bad measurable.
And so what does Acid3 measure? Obscure things that don't matter because unless IE gets better than a 20 on it, I can't see it being used for actual pages. Until IE at least scores an ~80 or so, those nice standards will simply be used in tech demos.
A lot of people would disagree with you that the parts of the DOM that Acid3 tests are not useful.
Useful for what? For measuring standards that aren't really used? Its like advertising your sound system as supporting some strange format of jack that doesn't matter to 99.99999% of potential customers. Its not a bad thing that its included, but when you advertise it like its a necessary thing, the advertising loses momentum.
When Gecko-based browsers first came out, the real-world web still included ActiveX, which was already recognized as a security hazard.
There isn't that much difference in time periods though. Gecko was developed in 1997 while ActiveX was developed in 1996.
If Iran doesn't want to be known as a tyrannical society with as of broken government of that of North Korea, if it wants to get respect for a (peaceful) nuclear program, they have to stop this oppression, let there be free speech. Heck, if this throws Iran into chaos and the president really wants what is best for Iran, he will step down and let the opposition leader take control.
The main problems are that NASA because of "security reasons" can't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground. So, what took NASA many years to do doesn't have to be reinvented by a private company. Really, the fact that any private craft could get into space would have been a remarkable feat just thirty or forty years ago.
So what do you do? Take out a loan for a Mac? You would be laughed out of the bank if you tried to do that. And honestly a lot of really good coders have crappy machines. It doesn't take a hugely expensive machine to turn out good code especially when you aren't rendering much on the machine itself. And really Macs are different than Linux/Windows machines because they are way, way, way, way, way more expensive. The capabilities of a $500 laptop are higher or just as high as a $999 Macbook the only difference being that the Macbook might have a slightly faster GPU, slightly faster RAM, or HD, things that are totally irrelevant for coding.
How about while were at it we repeal any tax that the government didn't deserve in the first place (that they did nothing more than basic safety/defense). Perhaps then we can see lower taxes, more sane taxes, and a general economic boom.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see, would I rather have an unpredictable drive head crash where all my information dies or I have to pay ~$300 for data recovery that may or may not find any data? Or would I rather have some sectors be read-only so I don't have to pay for recovery and I can still use my system? Hard disks are more prone to catastrophic, unpredictable failures than SSDs. SSDs fail nicely, I don't know about you but simply having to attach another SATA drive to my motherboard, back it up then replace the drive seems a whole lot better than dissembling the drive, trying to fix it, then reassembling it and hoping it works.
No its not. Opera has never been number 1 in browsers and Chrome has Google's advertising, Firefox has the community, and both IE and Safari are pre-installed. The iPhone is a one-browser, one-phone, phone, when eventually a new smartphone takes over, Opera's mobile market will rebound.
I'm not sure you would really want a swap partition on your SSD as that would wear it out faster (and these being a newer technology, you can bet they haven't tested reliability as much as they wanted to).
But chances are if there is a flaw in the drive logic you can return it because it shows up early. However most HDs fail after the warranty is expired.
And I've found the Mona Lisa! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Mona_Lisa.jpg But even if I print it out its not even close to the real thing.
Here is the link to the real article http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9134468 considering the one linked from the summary is totally different.
If I have an SSD in a laptop and I drop the laptop, what are the chances that even if my screen goes splat, my keyboard gets crumbled and the case splits open that my data is still safe? Pretty good. On the other hand, if the same laptop had a hard disk, you are looking at some pretty expensive data recovery plans to get data off of it. Sure, SSDs may have other issues (such as you can only write to a certain sector so many times till it becomes read-only) but with SSDs now and in the future you shouldn't have unpredictable failures like what happens to so many HDs.
Even if it takes 10 others?
10 others that know that it is untested and has no guarantee that it will work? Sure. Now, of course even without the FDA there is still some liability if they didn't properly test it on animals first, but if they knew the risks but still took it, its their problem.
What if they die 2 hours later?
Yes, and all people are completely rational actors with perfect information...
If the information is wrong, sue the manufacturers. There is no reason that a government that protected against fraud and force could not be a modern, free and productive society. If people aren't acting rationally on it, its their problem not society's.
Or you know, people can and do die because a cure can't be tested fast enough to be 100% certain that it works, however if it cures one life, its worth it. I mean, if someone was dying of cancer and had only a year to live, took a drug, it worked temporarily and they die 10 years later because of something the drug did, thats still better (no one can live forever). Plus, just look at the "miracle berry" case, where the FDA was essentially bought by the sugar industry that prevented a potentially useful item to market.
A free market regulates itself if it is free enough.
...Because either the game has to do a lot of initial loading or use the disk. Even copying from the HD to RAM takes time, sure, today you can pre-load a bunch of stuff, but things still need to be written and read from the disk every now and then.
Gamers, gamers, gamers and gamers. Seriously, the early adopters of any technology that is supposed to be faster on the consumer level will be gamers. Considering that most games are Windows-only it makes sense.
What in the world are you talking about? The nice things about SSDs is that yes, they do fail, but they fail (or are supposed to) in a predictable, non-catastrophic way that leaves the data readable just not writable. I have had two SSDs and haven't had either fail despite heavy usage, and I don't think you could patent SSDs because the technology is everywhere because it is flash memory and even if it is patented more companies make them than just one.
But losing robots isn't going to make a government quit, like losing so many human soldiers can.
And the point of the Acid tests is to demonstrate whether a given web browser acts like a 2009 browser or a 2001 browser.
True, however anything better than an 80 should be deemed "acceptable" in acting like a 2009 browser. A 94 isn't much different than a 100 when it comes to web standards whenever there are competitors who score a 20.
No web browser can Do What I Mean in all cases.
No, but Firefox comes pretty close, in my experience it does a better job of rendering than WebKit based browsers or IE.
Or d) finding a way not to have to access the site, such as by going to a competitor's site. On the whole, Mac owners tend to spend more online than owners of PCs that run Windows. Since Microsoft stopped making Internet Explorer for Mac, it didn't make sense to turn away potential customers who use Safari, whose WebKit acts more like Gecko than like IE's Trident. That's why there aren't a lot of IE-only sites anymore as of June 2009.
What happens if you go to a site for a small bit of information but the site hasn't been updated in a while and uses IE only code? I'd much rather my browser render it like its supposed to look (how the web designer wanted it to, not how standards necessarily dictate) than have an unusable site. Sure, there aren't many sites like that anymore but there are some.
About a decade ago, did you continue to use AOL even after standard dial-up Internet became popular, because the "existing" sites were still on AOL?
There is a difference though, AOLs system was 100% proprietary, compared to simply bad code which has A) a reference implementation (how it looks in the browser it was coded for) along with B) an OSS rendering engine that due to hard work can render it almost as good as the reference. implementation. There is no reason to simply drop compatibility modes for the sake of enforcing standards which will never work on those older sites because they are simply archives.
For one thing, it appears to be designed to shame Microsoft into improving Windows Internet Explorer. Had there been no Acid2, there might not have been an IE 8.
Actually I think that there would have needed to be an IE 8 otherwise with the OEMs in Europe being allowed to bundle browsers of their choosing and wanting to have sites that look like they should in 2009, not in 2001, would bundle Firefox, Chrome or Safari leading to dwindling marketshare for MS and ultimately leading them to abandon their browser market or release a better browser.
Just because a standard isn't used on June 17, 2009, doesn't mean it won't be used on June 18, 2009. Be it your intent or not, you are giving off an impression that bug-for-bug compatibility with a non-free program called Windows Internet Explorer is more important than following published standards.
Ok, but IE still has the majority of marketshare and there are still legacy sites out there. The fact that it is non-free should only add to the fact that a free browser that is widely used should work with all sites, even those not coded up to specifications, otherwise if there was an IE only site that you had to access you would either be hand-parsing the HTML files, would have to emulate IE if you were using a different platform other than Windows, or run Windows in a VM. Myself I prefer the web to "just work", be secure, and not be a pain to code for. Firefox has all that and compatibility with IE only helps those goals. If that means that I don't get a standard that isn't used, thats fine with me. Its sorta like reverse engineering the iPod Dock connector to use with your own MP3 player so it can work with existing accessories rather than spending development on an ultra-free connector that may or may not be used. Sure, if time allows include both, but I'd rather have compatibility with existing sites than sites that may or may not be used in the future.
Actually, the price of lead has gone up, along with the price of brass leading to higher ammo prices. For example, I shoot sporting clays and the price of a box of shotgun shells have gone up from ~$5 a box to ~$6.50 in only two years. The prices of other forms of ammunition have also gone up. I don't think this is as much of a "bubble" as simply the rising costs of raw materials.
Errr... Having installed Firefox many different times, on many different releases, on many different platforms, I would have to say that at least for versions 3 and above (been forever since I have installed anything in the 2.X branch, but I think it was enabled by default then too), spellcheck is enabled by default.
A lot of people would disagree with you that Acid3 is in fact a bad measurable.
And so what does Acid3 measure? Obscure things that don't matter because unless IE gets better than a 20 on it, I can't see it being used for actual pages. Until IE at least scores an ~80 or so, those nice standards will simply be used in tech demos.
A lot of people would disagree with you that the parts of the DOM that Acid3 tests are not useful.
Useful for what? For measuring standards that aren't really used? Its like advertising your sound system as supporting some strange format of jack that doesn't matter to 99.99999% of potential customers. Its not a bad thing that its included, but when you advertise it like its a necessary thing, the advertising loses momentum.
When Gecko-based browsers first came out, the real-world web still included ActiveX, which was already recognized as a security hazard.
There isn't that much difference in time periods though. Gecko was developed in 1997 while ActiveX was developed in 1996.
So wait.... We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq whenever almost the exact situation was going on, yet its perfectly ok to do the same thing in Iran?
If Iran doesn't want to be known as a tyrannical society with as of broken government of that of North Korea, if it wants to get respect for a (peaceful) nuclear program, they have to stop this oppression, let there be free speech. Heck, if this throws Iran into chaos and the president really wants what is best for Iran, he will step down and let the opposition leader take control.
The main problems are that NASA because of "security reasons" can't give out a lot of the taxpayer funded research that would help these companies get off the ground. So, what took NASA many years to do doesn't have to be reinvented by a private company. Really, the fact that any private craft could get into space would have been a remarkable feat just thirty or forty years ago.
...Because most forum admins know next to nothing about computers other than "type this and it sets up a bulletin board!!!"?
So what do you do? Take out a loan for a Mac? You would be laughed out of the bank if you tried to do that. And honestly a lot of really good coders have crappy machines. It doesn't take a hugely expensive machine to turn out good code especially when you aren't rendering much on the machine itself. And really Macs are different than Linux/Windows machines because they are way, way, way, way, way more expensive. The capabilities of a $500 laptop are higher or just as high as a $999 Macbook the only difference being that the Macbook might have a slightly faster GPU, slightly faster RAM, or HD, things that are totally irrelevant for coding.
How about while were at it we repeal any tax that the government didn't deserve in the first place (that they did nothing more than basic safety/defense). Perhaps then we can see lower taxes, more sane taxes, and a general economic boom.
There are several Sprint phones that are able to have tethering too. I really don't understand phone companies lately.